Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ZMQ runtime communication with FAST #2153

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

lorenzoschena
Copy link

@lorenzoschena lorenzoschena commented Apr 10, 2024

Feature or improvement description

ZMQ integration in the solver for real-time communication.

Code re-arranged from OpenFAST 3.5.0, now to be harmonized in new dev branch.
Related issue, if one exists

Impacted areas of the software

Mainly FAST Subs and FAST solution. Possibility to communicate at runtime.
Additional supporting information

currently well integrated with 1 wind turbine only, under testing. Given with python accompanying code.
Test results, if applicable

  • docs and joss paper under preparation;
  • added functionalities with python tbd
  • to be re-arranged and re-tested to fit new openfast dev

@lorenzoschena lorenzoschena changed the title Dev ZMQ runtime communication with FAST Apr 10, 2024
@andrew-platt andrew-platt self-assigned this Apr 10, 2024
@andrew-platt andrew-platt added this to the v4.0.0 milestone Apr 10, 2024
@@ -2286,31 +2487,69 @@ SUBROUTINE ValidateInputData(p, m_FAST, ErrStat, ErrMsg)
END IF
END IF

if (p%CompAeroMaps) then
! if (p%CompAeroMaps) then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this section supposed to be commented out, or did this break the error checking for the aeromap steady-state solver?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good question. I'll make sure we resolve it before merging.

@andrew-platt
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing this PR in preference for #2281

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants